Did excommunications drop off?

[mawst]

Hi,

In a recent discussion with a sedevacantist, it was suggested that the “Conciliar Church” doesn’t excersize it’s authority like the pre-Vatican II Church did.

The example given, was that for instance, Nancy Pelosi, pre Vatican II, would have been swiftly excommunicated for espousing the unmistakably unfaithful things she does in the public arena (other examples abound).

What’s the answer to this? Henry VIII went from defender of the Faith to excommunicated. Elizabeth I, and so on and so forth.

Is there a tenable excuse for the inaction of the bishops on these things or is it just in this traditionalists imagination that you can and should actually be excommunicated for heresy, as opposed to having an audience with the Pope as if nothing’s the matter?

These points have raised serious doubts for me, and I need clarification.

Thanks, and Christ be with you all.

 

[Luke65]

Well, there’s no reason here to doubt. Excommunications are matters of discipline, and so there is no guarantee of infallibility. Why even your sedevacantist friend could be wrong! But this is a very difficult matter for the Church’s shepherds to determine. Although, I would say that there is no doubt that many of them have been derelict in their duty to protect the flock from false teachers. On the other hand, keep this in mind:

Matthew 13 (NIV)

24Jesus told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.

27"The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’

28" ‘An enemy did this,’ he replied.
"The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’

29" ‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. 30Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’ "

God bless.

 

[otjm]

It may well be true that the Church currently does not apply penalties as it used to.

The question may be: so what?

That, however, would be more flippant than anything, and certainly not enlightening.

People want simple answers to complex questions, and when they get a simple answer, it usually does serious damage to the truth.

People want, for example, the church to act as if it was in the 1950’s; however, no one is in the 1950’s; we are in the second decade of the 21st century, not the 6th decade of the 20th. What do I mean? Society in general was far different in the 1950’s than it is in 2010. People in general responded to authority much differently then than they do now. that is to say, if authority required something, in the 1950’s it was generally complied with; if authority requires something now, it is ignored, argued with, sued, challenged… and that is authority in all of its stripes; not just the authority of the Church.

If the Church had a matter with, for example, a Senator or Congressman (or woman) in the 1950’s, the bishop could call up the offending individual, have a private chat, and get something done, or some attitudes changed. People gave credence to the bishop and his authority.

Now, there is no credence given to the bishop; he can jawbone all he wants, and he will be politely told to stuff it. He will be told in so many words that this is not his area of expertise, and that will pretty much end the issue. In addition, any legitimate sanction is going to be run through the press, a press that is notoriously anti-Catholic, one that ignores anything the main-line Church has to say, and the spin that would come from any excommunication, say, of someone who might chair the Speaker’s office would only succeed in creating a bigger problem for the bishop in trying to provide any form of leadership. A bishop who would dare refuse Communion to someone, say, who might possibly chair the House would run into a wall of criticism, not just from liberal Catholics, but from every anti-Catholic out there, as trying to influence politics (never mind that the matter was a Church matter, not a political matter). Then watch the bishop try to address a panel of the House or Senate on a different issue - e.g. abortion, or work with the poor… his credibility, if he had any to begin with, would be zilch.

There are many other issues at play in the matter.

For example, much is made of the oath against Modernity that priests were required to take.

Guess what? They took it; and those same priests who took it lead the charge after Vatican 2 of spinning the documents of Vatican to where the Church never intended, or simply flat out ignoring the documents. As in, the oath was not worth the air that was breathed when it was taken… or to say it another way, the oath did not cure the problem. The problem simply went underground. Really useful, that. It made for a great production of “protecting the Church”. Which it patently didn’t.

One needs to be quite careful of what one chooses as a means of discipline; it can all backfire and create far greater problems than it was theoretically designed to cure.

One of the better, if not the best bishops around is Chaput. He doesn’t go about excommunicating people. He is fantastic in terms of spelling out clearly what the Church teaches, and taking to task the politicians who ignore it openly. I would submit he is far more effective in how he approaches the matters, than if he simply excommunicated some of them, or refused them Communion (which he has used, judicially).

 

[thistle]

The President of the Philippines is being warned by the Bishops here that he might be subject to excommunication if he continues his support for disribution of contraceptives.
At least the Church in one country is not afraid to stand up to the political leaders.

newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20101001-295320/Aquino-faces-threat-of-excommunication

 

[otjm]

The President of the Philippines is being warned by the Bishops here that he might be subject to excommunication if he continues his support for disribution of contraceptives.
At least the Church in one country is not afraid to stand up to the political leaders.

newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20101001-295320/Aquino-faces-threat-of-excommunication

And I would suspect that the culture in the Philippines is not the same as the culture in the US, or in Europe.

 

[thistle]

And I would suspect that the culture in the Philippines is not the same as the culture in the US, or in Europe.

Europe and USA seems to be heading in more secular direction, and Catholics seem to be becoming more “cafeteria Catholic” thinking they know better then the Church. A sense of sin is missing.

Here most Catholics are very devout, albeit quite ignorant about their faith which stems from poor catechism after confirmation. Frankly the parents should do more to teach the children.
Here too Sunday Mass attendence averages about 80%. At my local Church we have 10 Masses every Sunday to accomodate everyone.

 

[Just_Lurking]

The example given, was that for instance, Nancy Pelosi, pre Vatican II, would have been swiftly excommunicated for espousing the unmistakably unfaithful things she does in the public arena (other examples abound).

In the “good old days”, not only would Nancy Pelosi be excommunicated, but her entire district in California would be put under interdict, so as to be denied all the sacraments, until Pelosi changed her ways.

 

[otjm]

Europe and USA seems to be heading in more secular direction,

While the US has farther to go on the slide of secularization, I am not sure Europe can become more secular. It would seem that Europe was what Benedict had in mind when he spoke of a remnant Church.

Catholics seem to be becoming more “cafeteria Catholic” thinking they know better then the Church. A sense of sin is missing.

That seems to be the driving force of secularization - the loss of the sense of sin.

Here most Catholics are very devout, albeit quite ignorant about their faith which stems from poor catechism after confirmation. Frankly the parents should do more to teach the children.
Here too Sunday Mass attendence averages about 80%. At my local Church we have 10 Masses every Sunday to accomodate everyone.

Parents can’t teach their children what they don’t know. It is the responsibility of the bishops, and through them, the priests, to continue the education process. Sadly, the idea that once one is Confirmed, one “has arrived” is nothing new; that attitude was prevalent in the 1950’s in the US and, I suspect, world wide.

 

[James224]

Hi,

In a recent discussion with a sedevacantist, it was suggested that the “Conciliar Church” doesn’t excersize it’s authority like the pre-Vatican II Church did.

The example given, was that for instance, Nancy Pelosi, pre Vatican II, would have been swiftly excommunicated for espousing the unmistakably unfaithful things she does in the public arena (other examples abound).

What’s the answer to this? Henry VIII went from defender of the Faith to excommunicated. Elizabeth I, and so on and so forth.

Is there a tenable excuse for the inaction of the bishops on these things or is it just in this traditionalists imagination that you can and should actually be excommunicated for heresy, as opposed to having an audience with the Pope as if nothing’s the matter?

These points have raised serious doubts for me, and I need clarification.

Thanks, and Christ be with you all.

I would trust the wisdom of the Church. I sure would not put my faith in Jerry Matatics or the Dimond Brothers. You can always say something isn’t done enough or done too much.

 

[Third_Day]

Hi,

In a recent discussion with a sedevacantist, it was suggested that the “Conciliar Church” doesn’t excersize it’s authority like the pre-Vatican II Church did.

The example given, was that for instance, Nancy Pelosi, pre Vatican II, would have been swiftly excommunicated for espousing the unmistakably unfaithful things she does in the public arena (other examples abound).

What’s the answer to this? Henry VIII went from defender of the Faith to excommunicated. Elizabeth I, and so on and so forth.

Is there a tenable excuse for the inaction of the bishops on these things or is it just in this traditionalists imagination that you can and should actually be excommunicated for heresy, as opposed to having an audience with the Pope as if nothing’s the matter?

These points have raised serious doubts for me, and I need clarification.

Thanks, and Christ be with you all.

Archbishop Milingo was excommunicated, the folks ordaining women priests were excommunicated, The four Bishops of St. Pius X were excommunicated, members of Called to Action members were excommunicated. I 'm sure there are others.
By the way, your sedevacantist friend has excommunicated himself bybeing a modern day heretic.